Order : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.06.2009 passed by Superintendent of Police, Headquarter Jaipur City whereby, the benefits of annual grade increment/selection grade earlier granted to the petitioner has been modified in the manner detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. He has also challenged the order dated 23.06.2009, whereby pay fixation of the petitioner has been done pursuant to order dated 10.06.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of ‘General Constable’ on 14.09.1976 and at the relevant time, there was no separate cadre for Driver in M.T. branch. Learned counsel for the petitioner was discharging duties of the Driver. However, in the year 1989, a separate post of Constable (Driver) was created with the arrangement that the Constable, who was earlier working as Driver shall continue to work and can be adjusted against the sanctioned post of ‘Constable (Driver)’. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accordingly, the monetary benefits, including annual grade increment/selection grade were granted to the petitioner vide order dated 03.06.1999 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-1600/-, was further revised in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000. Thereafter, benefit of third selection grade on completion of 27 years of service was also given to the petitioner vide order dated 16.08.2004. However, quite abruptly, without giving any opportunity of hearing or without issuing any notice whatsoever, order dated 10.06.2009 was issued by the respondents whereby, the benefits of annual grade increment/selection grade earlier granted to the petitioner were modified and revised at the lower stage, and recovery of the excess amount earlier paid pursuant to alleged erroneous fixation was directed to be effected. The aforesaid order dated 10.06.2009 was followed by another order dated 23.06.2009, whereby pay fixation of the petitioner has been done in accordance with order dated 10.06.2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the annual grade increment and benefit of selection grade were granted by the respondents to the petitioner in accordance with their own rules and regulations/circulars, and at no point of time, the petitioner had ever misrepresented or committed fraud in getting such benefits. Once, these benefits were granted to the petitioner and he drew salary accordingly, after around 10 to 15 years, such benefits cannot be withdrawn that too without granting any opportunity of hearing whatsoever. 4. Once, these benefits were granted to the petitioner and he drew salary accordingly, after around 10 to 15 years, such benefits cannot be withdrawn that too without granting any opportunity of hearing whatsoever. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even in the light of judgment of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 Supreme Court and Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1909 , recovery of excess amount cannot be made from the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submits that earlier, confusion arose due to different pay scales admissible to Constable (General) and Constable (Driver) and higher pay scale was erroneously allowed to the petitioner, which is otherwise not admissible to him. Hence, when such mistake was traced by the authorities, in order to grant the correct pay scale and benefits of annual grade increment/selection grade, order dated 10.06.2009 has been passed by the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that, any person holding post with the Government is under an obligation not to draw higher salary than the salary otherwise admissible to him under the Rules. Action taken by the respondents is strictly in accordance with Rules. Therefore, there was no requirement to issue any notice prior to passing the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. reported in 2012 (8) SCC 417 in support of impugned order and submits that the State Government was well within its rights to pass an order in order to withdraw the benefits which were earlier erroneously given to the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also informed that during the pendency of the writ petition, on attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner was retired with effect from 31.05.2013. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 10. It is not in dispute that earlier the benefits of fixation in pay scale of Rs.1400 and 2600, which was further revised in pay scales of Rs. 5500-9000/-, was granted by the respondents at their own will without there being any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. 10. It is not in dispute that earlier the benefits of fixation in pay scale of Rs.1400 and 2600, which was further revised in pay scales of Rs. 5500-9000/-, was granted by the respondents at their own will without there being any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. After receiving the benefits pursuant to such orders, vested rights are created in favour of Government employee and such benefits cannot be normally withdrawn without affording any opportunity of hearing. In the instant case admittedly, no notice whatsoever was issued by the respondents prior to issuing of the order impugned. 11. Even if, the respondents claimed a right to revise the pay scales in accordance with the rules, yet the recovery of excess amount paid pursuant to earlier orders, which were passed without there being any overt act of the petitioner, cannot be made in the light of judgment of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra), and Jagdish Kumar(supra). 12. In the light of above discussions and guidelines given by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the writ petition is partly allowed with direction that the respondents shall not carry out any recovery from the petitioner pursuant to order dated 10.06.2009. However, they are at liberty to make fixation of the pay to petitioner, if not made as yet, pursuant to impugned order dated 10.06.2009. 13. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed as per aforesaid directions.